Method for allocating system costs of the infrastructure of a computer center

ABSTRACT

A computer-implemented method for allocating system costs of an infrastructure of a computer center includes the steps of: determining total pro rata temporis costs of individual system resources of the infrastructure for a billing period; dividing the total pro rata temporis costs of individual system resources into individual performances by a key; dividing the individual performances into individual performance shares for one service each, such that the division corresponds to a percentage share of the individual performance actually used by one service each; adding up for one service each for one system resource each the individual performance shares, thereby providing performance share sums; and adding up the performance share sums, which have been formed each for the same service but different system resources.

The invention relates to a method for allocating system costs, inparticular those of the infrastructure of a computer center.

The present invention serves for the solution of an operational problemin the field of business accountancy. In cost center accounting, thecosts structured with respect to type of costs are combined in costunits according to classification criteria, that means, for example,according to the location where they have accrued or their use. By thisprocess, the total costs belonging to one classification criterion canbe allocated to a department or enterprise, and in this manner,operating costs are allocated to certain enterprises or departments.Equally, the total costs of certain operational functions, for exampleof distribution, personnel administration or another internal function,can be combined in one or several cost units.

The information demand of corporate controlling, however, is notrestricted to the knowledge, for example, of the complete personnelexpenses of a department or the total costs of distribution. At the endof the cost accounting process, the original costs of the products orthe individual services should rather be identified. The products or theindividual services of the enterprise are displayed in the costaccounting as cost units. For the determination of the original costs ofthe products or the individual services, it is therefore necessary toallocate the costs of personnel and physical resources made use of forthe provision to the respective product or the individual service. Thisis true for costs of resources made use of in the enterprise that can bedirectly allocated to the product or the individual service, as well asfor costs of resources serving the manufacture of several products orthat are made use of in several services.

If the costs for the manufacture of several products or for theprovision of several services for resources made use of in theenterprise are cumulated in one cost unit, there is the cost accountingproblem of the division and allocation of these costs to the individualproducts or the individual services, respectively, of the enterprise.One example is the common utilization of machines for several productsof an enterprise or the use of the infrastructure of a computer centerfor various services of an enterprise. Another example is theutilization of the motor vehicle pool of an enterprise, where the degreeof utilization of the motor vehicle pool by different products andservices can vary. If the degree of utilization of the machines, theinfrastructure of a computer center, the motor vehicle pool or otherresources within the enterprise by the individual products or servicesvaries or if only parts of the machine, the infrastructure of a computercenter, the motor vehicle pool or other resources are made use of by thedifferent products and services, here the concrete problem arises that,from an operational point of view, less costs have to be allocated to aproduct or a service that uses the machine or the infrastructure of acomputer center less than to a product or a service that uses the samemachine or the same infrastructure of a computer center to a muchgreater extent.

At present, it is usual to always rely on cost or turnover values tothis end. When the costs are used as reference quantity, first thematerial and production costs as well as all other costs that can bedirectly allocated to the product or the service, such as for examplefull-time equivalent (FTE), are allocated to the product or the service.These costs are divided by the sum of all provision costs determined inthe same manner and multiplied by the cost pool to be divided. As aresult, one obtains the share of the distribution costs the individualproduct or service has to bear as cost pool. This procedure implies thata product or a service with higher costs also binds more resources indistribution and therefore has to bear a higher share of distributioncosts. Instead of the costs, as a division criterion, one can alsoconsult the turnover of the individual products or the individualservices. The division method remains unchanged in this case, theoriginal costs of the products or the service differ in the two methods.This, however, is unsatisfactory as in both cases the same facts of thecase are the basis. This example shows that the use of differentreference quantities from the same facts of the case lead to differentresults in the determination of the original costs, the actual use ofthe internal resources not being taken into consideration. As theoriginal costs and the sales proceeds of the products have an influenceon profitability assessment, the selected method of cost allocation isof existential importance for the enterprise. In operationalaccountancy, these parameters are compared and form the basis ofdecisions of the management who decide on the production or provisionprocess, the continuation or abandonment of the production of theproduct or the provision of the service. The difficulty with differentapproaches leading to different charging of costs for individualproducts or services of an enterprise can always be overcome if allcosts that can be allocated directly to the product or the service arebased on units that can be directly compared. Units mean, for example,rendered man-hours as full-time equivalents or material costs inmonetary units. However, the problem becomes complicated and not alwayseasy to solve if the contribution to a product or to a service consistsof different performances that can only be measured with differentunits.

It is therefore an object of the invention to link the utilizationinformation of internal resources, in particular the infrastructure of acomputer center, which are present in different measured quantities,such that the costs of a resource can be allocated to individualproducts and/or services according to causation.

The object according to the invention is solved by a method forallocating system costs, in particular those of the infrastructure of acomputer center, consisting of at least one first step in which thetotal pro rata temporis costs of individual system resources of aninfrastructure are acquired for a billing period, at least one secondstep in which the total costs of individual system resources are dividedinto individual performances by a key, at least one third step in whichthe performances determined in the second step are divided intoindividual performance shares for one service each, with the provisothat the division corresponds to the percental share of the performanceactually used by a service, at least one fourth step in which theperformance shares determined in the third step are added up for oneservice each for one system resource each, and at least one fifth stepin which the performance share sums of the fourth step that have beenformed each for the same service but for different system resources areadded up, wherein the individual steps one to five can also comprisecommon intermediate steps for optimization. The common intermediatesteps for optimization are common intermediate steps of the dataprocessing technique necessary for performing and optimizing arithmeticoperations, such as for example buffering or reading out and utilizingarithmetic results from previous arithmetic operations to avoidredundant arithmetic operations. This is in particular true for thedivision of the costs according to a key. This does not have to berepeated for each process but can be performed once, and subsequently,the results of this procedure step can be reused in the followingallocations.

It is one advantage of the method according to the invention that thecost allocation to be performed on the basis of different performancesis performed by dimension-less performance shares. It is thus avoidedthat different performances that cannot be associated with one anotherdue to a different unit of measure have to be associated with oneanother.

Before further advantageous embodiments of the invention will bedescribed, the method according to the invention will be described ingreater detail and concretized by way of example at this location. Byway of example, but without restricting the idea of the invention, theshare of cost of individual products or individual services in theinfrastructure of a computer center can be determined with the methodaccording to the invention.

The infrastructure of a computer center does not only consist of acentral arithmetic unit but usually comprises a considerable number ofdifferent individual data processing systems and peripheral units whichcan all by themselves also cause considerable costs. Due to theuniversal usability of the infrastructure of a computer center, it ispossible that for one product or for one service, the resources of theinfrastructure of the computer center are made use of to a differentextent. By way of example, a service or the production of a product canbe very compute-bound, another service or production of a product can bevery memory-bound. Other services or production processes for a productin turn can to a great extent primarily make use of the communicationinfrastructure of the computer center and make almost no use of thestorage capacity. Here, there is a considerable variability. Theindividual system resources can be optimized such that the intensivelyused system resources are made available by high-performance systemresources, and that other, less used system resources are made availableby less powerful system resources. If now a service or the production ofa product to a considerable extent requires a system resource that wasup to then only little used so that the replacement by a more powerfulsystem resource is necessary, this investment can be allocated to allservices and/or products according to causation, without, due toallocation of cost not according to causation, higher costs being billedto those services or those products that were not subject to any changebefore and after the optimization.

The particularity of many computer systems is that a computer system cansolve various tasks apparently in parallel. Indeed, in practice theproblems are subdivided into many individual problems with a low degreeof complexity, and each partial solution is only processed for a limitedperiod, and thus the computer processes different problems sequentiallyone after the other in small time slots. As a result, the problemssolved with the aid of the computer are apparently processed inparallel. This approach turned out to be particularly advantageousbecause a computer often has to spend long waiting times for activatinghard disks, magnetic tape drives or for setting up a network connection.A long waiting time here means long in relation to the time required forthe processing of a partial problem. Here, it is absolutely common thatsuch waiting times take several seconds during which further partialsteps of another problem can be solved. If the partial problem ofanother problem has been solved, the computer can access the peripheryto be activated and thus the computer has spent valuable system timeduring the waiting time for providing billable computer performancesinstead of wasting system time that cannot be billed as waiting time. Asan alternative, it would be also possible to completely process theproblems to be solved by means of the computer one after the other,however, then no problem will be solved in the waiting times, so thatthe time for sequential processing, that means processing one afteranother, of arithmetic problems is essentially longer than in theapparent parallel processing of various problems one next to another.

However, just in this above-described apparently parallel processing,the problem of the cost allocation for various performances the systemhas to provide is shown. If several programs, which will be referred toas services below, are processed simultaneously on a relatively largecomputer, it is not easy to clearly allocate the utilization of theperiphery and the computer to each service. For example, it is possiblethat a service actually runs on several computers, for example in theconsolidation of relatively large annual accounts, and by this, networkconnections are often set up from one computer to other ones. Otherservices can in turn be programmed such that these preferably performmany operations on the mass storages, that means, for example, the harddisk. Here, it is essential whether, for example, the individualcalculation steps are performed in many individual hard disk operations,or whether a hard disk operation is employed economically, and all dataare written onto the hard disk only in one large concerted step.Experience showed that the wear of mass storages at a high mechanicalload, that means with many individual operations, is by far higher thanin case of rare loads, where the number of stored data can be the samein both cases. However, not only the different use of hard disks ormagnetic tape drives challenges the employed system resource to varyingextents. Equally, when using network connections for example over longdistances, it is usual to bill the actual network utilization on thebasis of the actually transmitted data and the individual actually setup data connections. Apart from this, however, there is a plurality offurther peripheral system units that can be used by a service to avarying extent, where the peripheral physical units can make upconsiderably high costs in the overall investment of a computer as asystem resource of a computer center.

The method according to the invention now permits to allocate the totalcosts for a computer, as system resource of a computer center, toindividual services in a quantifiable manner and according to causation.To this end, the total pro rata temporis costs of the infrastructure ofindividual system resources are determined for a billing period in afirst step according to the invention. This means that the pro ratatemporis costs for example of peripheral physical units, such as, forexample, printer, network connection, disk drives, network maintenancestructure as well as for example uninterrupted power supplies, areacquired. Here, it is common that the overall lives of variousperipheral physical units vary. In the determination of the pro ratatemporis costs, thus the total costs of the system are dividedcorresponding to the relation of the billing period to the overall lifeof the individual assembly. This first step according to the inventioncan be performed by taking data for example from an ERP (EnterpriseResource Planning) system where operational data are stored andmaintained in a separate computer system. To this end, the system thatperforms the method according to the invention requests from an ERPsystem the data of the individual assemblies containing the total costsand the overall life and possibly further parameters, such as, forexample, the fiscal depreciation modality. It is, for example, possibleto depreciate the investment in a system resource on a straight-linebasis or else on a reducing-balance basis. As a consequence, in thedifferent billing periods, a different pro rata temporis cost pool ofthe respective infrastructure can be formed.

According to the invention, in the at least second step, the cost sharesof individual performances of a resource are divided by a key. The keyis the only input parameter that has to be determined independently inan external step. Just with integrated system resources that can befurther subdivided into different sub-resources, this decision isnecessary. By way of example, a system resource is mentioned whichmainly makes available mass storages. Such a system resourcenevertheless comprises all common peripheral elements that are alsocomprised by other assemblies or system resources. A performance of thissystem is thus the provision of mass storage and could, for example,make up a share of 90% of the total costs of the system resource.Another exemplary system resource could however provide storage space aswell as communication services. This system resource could comprise anexemplary division of 40% of the total costs for mass storages and 60%of the total costs for communication services. It is here up to theperson skilled in the art to optimally divide the integrated systemresources to permit an allocation of system resources as far as possibleaccording to causation.

According to the invention, in the at least third step, the shares ofcost determined in the second step are again divided corresponding tothe performance shares of individual performances of a resource made useof by a service. By this further division, a share of cost of aperformance of a system resource for a service is obtained.

In the at least fourth step, the shares of cost determined in the thirdstep are added up for one service each. By this, the total share of costof all performances of one single system resource are obtained for oneservice.

In the at least fifth step, the sums of the fourth step that had beenformed for different system resources and each made use of by the sameservice are added up. Thus, one obtains the system costs of a service,so that these system costs can be allocated to the one service directly.

The advantage of the whole system is that for adding performance sharesonly costs are used, and no individual unit of measure has to be usedfor the respective system resource or sub-resource, such as, forexample, the number of transmitted data, the number of write and readcycles, the amount of written data, the number of printed pages of paperor other uses of peripheral units not listed here.

That means, by the method according to the invention it is achieved thata service, a program processed on different system resources (computers)can be billed according to causation and in a quantifiable manner. Incontrast to methods common up to now where other allocation keys wereused, this method operates almost absolutely according to causation andalso offers an incentive for the bearer of the various costs tooptimally utilize the system.

In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, systemperformance data generated by the operating system of the dataprocessing equipment are used as individual units of measure for theindividual performances of a system resource.

Many operating systems, precisely of computers, but also of programmablemachines, already offer a great amount of data suited for being used inthe method according to the invention. Thus, it is for example known toprovide data on the utilization of individual peripheral modules ingroups. By way of example, the number of transmitted and the number ofreceived data bytes, the number of performed write and read cycles, thenumber of actually written and read-out data, the time of CPU seconds,the time of programs in the computer, and many other system-typicalparameters are mentioned. These data are usually provided by means ofthe SNMP protocol (Simple Network Maintenance Protocol). These systemperformance data are often used for assessing the integrity of thecomputer from outside. Here, often heuristic methods are relied uponwhich determine by plausibility checks whether a computer system isstill in a desired and stable state, or whether the computer systempossibly does not operate properly due to faulty programming ormalfunction and thus causes costs without solving problems and generatethe desired data in a desired manner. These so-called system performancedata, however, are not only suited for monitoring system integrity.According to the invention, these data are also suited for performingcost billing of individual services processed on several, or only on onesystem resource, and this according to causation and in a quantifiablemanner.

In a further advantageous embodiment of the invention, ERP data are usedto obtain the pro rata temporis costs of the infrastructure ofindividual system resources for executing the method.

The system executing the method according to the invention thusestablishes data from various sources and combines them to aquantifiable cost accounting according to causation. Thus, one obtainsdata from the ERP system which permit conclusions to the pro ratatemporis costs of the infrastructure, and these are used to determine,together with the share of the performance provided by oneinfrastructure each, the pro rata temporis cost pool for oneinfrastructure each.

According to the invention, the method for allocating system costs of adata processing system is performed by a computer software forallocating system costs of a data processing system or a whole dataprocessing cluster. This computer software is characterized in that thesoftware comprises a first program interface to the operating system ofthe system resources to be rated via which system performance data canbe input. Moreover, the computer software comprises a further programinterface to an ERP system from which the pro rata temporis costs of thesystem resource concerned can be read out.

That means, the computer software which is to perform the costaccounting according to the invention takes its data from severalindependent sources. A first source represents the operational softwareof an enterprise, in most cases ERP systems, however, it is alsopossible to fall back on other operational data made available by adatabase, instead of the ERP systems. In the context of this patentapplication, ERP software means all software comprising operational dataand from which operational data can be taken. The program interface withwhich one can access the system performance data of individual systemresources is advantageously an SNMP interface. However, it is alsopossible to use any other protocol for reading out system performancedata. The use of SNMP data is advantageous because they are madeavailable on many systems. A limitation to SNMP data, however, is notnecessary according to the invention. Most operating systems makeavailable special programs, so-called agents, disposing of highlysystem-specific routines to make available the condition of theindividual assemblies of the data processing system. These data are madeavailable by this program in the respective data processing unit at thenetwork interface by means of the SNMP protocol. In the process,system-specific agents can be used, or else programs individually set upfor the program according to the invention can be employed to providethe system performance data.

In an advantageous manner, the program for determining the system costsruns on a separate computer connected to the network via which allcomputers and information to be rated are accessible and can be queried.This central computer processes the program which collects the data fromother computers, that means in particular the system performance data,and allocates them with the aid of the data from an ERP system accordingto the method according to the invention. In the process, the data canbe stored in a remote ERP system, or it is also possible that the datastored for calculating the pro rata temporis costs are stored in theprogram for calculating the system costs itself.

In an advantageous manner, a database is used for implementing theprogram into which the individual system performance data are writtenand with the aid of which all further necessary steps and buffering ofdata are performed.

In an advantageous embodiment of the computer software according to theinvention, the same comprises an interface for interactively controllingthe calculation of system costs. This makes it possible to possibly takecorrective actions in the software in case of errors or to provide thesoftware with the system data at the right time or with the necessaryauthentication parameters by inputting manual control commands. Thisensures that the software for calculating the infrastructure does notintervene in the performance of the system resources in an undesiredmanner, but that the calculation can be started and stopped at any timeby manual control.

The method according to the invention, however, can not only be used forallocating system costs of a computer center, but also for otheroperational process cost calculations. By way of example, machinerywhere different products are worked with partially overlapping machineprocessing can be allocated in this manner. This is in particular truefor differently configured processing by robot lines, but motor vehiclepools that provide the transport of very heavy goods over a shortdistance, the transport over longer distances, factual storage ofproducts in a trailer or else the delivery of individual documents asservice in an enterprise as an integrated system resource can also beallocated in this manner. It is up to the person skilled in the art toformulate applications of the method according to the invention for theinternal allocation of activity costs and system costs.

In a further advantageous embodiment of the method according to theinvention, between the at least first step and the at least second step,a further intermediate step is inserted in which the total pro ratatemporis costs of individual resources are allocated to individuallogical units. By this intermediate step, those system resources canalso be allocated which are only virtually offered in an actual systemresource. By way of example, a logical server is mentioned which isprovided on an actual server. Several logical system resources are oftenoperated on system resources in parallel, so that it is not transparentfor programs whether they run in the environment of an individualcomputer or in a virtual environment of a computer. Among them are notonly operating system emulators, but also Web servers running in severalentities or other program environments which in turn offer theirservices to other program environments. In this intermediate step, thevalues thus distributed to the individual logical units are used asinput parameters for the at least second step, in which the costs aredivided into individual performances by a key.

The method according to the invention and the software according to theinvention are absolutely suited for the use in heterogeneous softwarelandscapes. By a modular structure it is possible to integrate thesoftware in existing system management tools, for example for an IToverall controlling. To this end, the software according to theinvention comprises interfaces to ERP systems on the one hand, but alsoto the above-mentioned system management tools on the other hand.

The method according to the invention will be illustrated again withreference to an example.

In the drawings

FIG. 1 shows an illustrated flowchart of the method according to theinvention, and

FIG. 2 shows an illustrated flowchart of the method according to theinvention in one embodiment.

In FIG. 1, a flowchart of the method according to the invention forallocating system costs is shown. Starting with the at least first step1, the total pro rata temporis costs of one system resource each aredetermined. These data can be provided from an ERP system and the prorata temporis costs can be formed during the fiscal year, after thefiscal year or else after the fiscal asset depreciation range, as longas the different fiscal asset depreciation ranges result indepreciations of different amounts.

If the total pro rata temporis costs of one system resource, for examplefor system resource R1, have been determined, these total pro ratatemporis costs are divided according to a key according to the at leastsecond step 2, so that 100% of the costs are allocated to individualperformances, in this example performance L1, L2, L3, L4, L5 and L6.However, it is also possible that this division does not have to beperformed if it is a system resource making available one singleperformance. The necessary key for cost allocation then correspondinglyleads to a complete allocation of the total costs to one performance.The division percentally divides the total pro rata temporis costs ofone system resource, where always 100% of the total pro rata temporiscosts are allocated to individual performances. It is true that anexternal parameter is introduced thereby, however, this is necessary toallocate integrated system resources that can not be divided any more asto their costs and can provide a plurality of different performances,corresponding to the actual use of performances, i.e. according tocausation. In the system resources mentioned above by way of examplewhich only provide one single performance, this division is notnecessary. For example, one can mention network components which providethe same performance for different services.

In the at least third step 3, the shares in the total pro rata temporiscosts determined in the at least second step 2 are divided again byallocating the percental performance shares LA1D1, LA1D2, LA1D3, LA2D1,LA2D2, LA2D3 to individual services, that means in this example D1, D2and D3. In FIG. 1 under step 3, the numbering means in each case thepercental performance share of performance 1 (LA1) provided for serviceD1 (D1). For further combinations of different performance shares ofdifferent performances and different services, the subscripted numberchanges correspondingly. As intermediate result one obtains in thisthird step 3 the pro rata temporis share in the total costs dividedaccording to service and system resource. These percental performanceshares of individual performances are designated with LAi under step 4in the flowchart, i standing for different performances as variabledesignation.

In the at least fourth step 4, the percental performance shares LAi ofdifferent performances from the at least third step 3 are added up forone service each for one system resource each, here by way of exampleservice D1 and system resources R1, R2 and R3.

In the at least fifth step 5, the performance share sums of the at leastfourth step 4 are again added up, in step 4 the added up percentalperformance shares being added up for the same service across allresources. As a net result, one obtains here the cost shares a servicehas caused by using performances at all system resources. These costshares are to a great extent allocated according to causation.

These cost shares represent directly allocatable costs for individualservices that can be used for the allocation. A relation of service orproduct of the enterprise to a service is achieved in that a service isonly provided for one service or only for one product.

The method is illustrated and used by a logical sequence of individualsteps. It is here up to the person skilled in the art to select commonmathematical reductions or operational sequences that possibly avoid oroptimize necessary intermediate steps for buffering data or for asimpler summation or formation of quotients.

In FIG. 2, a flowchart comparable to FIG. 1 is shown, where anadditional intermediate step between step 1 and step 2 in FIG. 1 hasbeen inserted. Here, the total costs of one resource each are allocatedin addition to individual logical units stored on an actual resourcebefore the division of the total costs of one resource each. This meansthat a computer which, for example, provides several operating systemssimultaneously or offers more than one operating system environment issubdivided into several logical units. In the process, the costssubdivided in this manner are used in the following step as costs of thelogical unit instead of costs of the actual resource.

The invention claimed is:
 1. A computer-implemented method forallocating system costs applicable on every part of an infrastructure ofa computer center, wherein the infrastructure includes at least oneperipheral device and at least one arithmetic unit, the method performedon at least one computer having a computer readable medium having storedthereon instructions, which, when executed by a processor of thecomputer, causes the processor to implement the method, comprising:determining, on the processor of the computer, total costs in proportionseveral parameters of individual system resources of the infrastructurefor a billing period, wherein the total costs include a cost for the atleast one peripheral device that is determined based on a specific usageof a service for which the at least one peripheral device is used;dividing, on the processor of the computer, the total costs inproportion several parameters of individual system resources into costshares of individual performances of system resources by a key;dividing, on the processor of the computer, the cost shares ofindividual performances of system resources into individual performanceshares of system resources made use of by individual services, such thatthe division corresponds to a percentage share of the individualperformance of a system resource actually used by an individual service;adding, on the processor of the computer, the individual performanceshares for each service for each system resource, thereby providingperformance share sums; and adding, on the processor of the computer,the performance share sums, which have been formed each for the sameservice but different system resources.
 2. The method according to claim1, wherein the cost shares of individual performances of systemresources are determined from data generated by an operating system ofdata processing equipment of the infrastructure.
 3. The method accordingto claim 2, wherein Simple Network Maintenance Protocol (SNMP) is usedfor reading out the system performance data.
 4. The method according toclaim 1, wherein Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) data is used fordetermining the total costs in proportion to several parameters ofindividual system resources of the infrastructure.
 5. The methodaccording to claim 1, wherein a database in a separate system is usedfor calculating the total costs in proportion to several parameters ofindividual system resources.
 6. The method according to claim 1, whereinthe system performance data is made available to at least one computerof the computer center via a network protocol.
 7. The method accordingto claim 1, wherein SNMP protocol is used for querying systemperformance data from the individual system resources.
 8. The methodaccording to claim 1, further comprising: allocating the total costs inproportion to several parameters of the individual system resources toindividual logical units of the system resources after the total costsin proportion to several parameters are determined, wherein the totalcosts in proportion to several parameters allocated to the logical unitsare used as input values for the at least second step.
 9. A computerreadable medium having control logic stored therein for causing acomputer to allocate system costs of an infrastructure of a computercenter, the control logic comprising: first readable code means fordetermining total costs in proportion several parameters of individualsystem resources of the infrastructure for a billing period, wherein thetotal costs include a cost for at least one peripheral device of theinfrastructure of the computer center that is determined based onspecific usage of a service for which the at least one peripheral deviceis used; second readable code means for dividing the total costs inproportion to several parameters of individual system resources intoindividual performances by a key; third readable code means for dividingthe cost shares of individual performances of system resources intoindividual performance shares of system resources made use of byindividual services, such that the division corresponds to a percentageshare of the individual performance of a system resource actually usedby an individual service; fourth readable code means for adding theindividual performance shares for each service for each system resource,thereby providing performance share sums; fifth readable code means foradding the performance share sums, which have been formed each for thesame service but different system resources; sixth readable code meansfor providing a first program interface to an operating system of theindividual system resources via which system performance data are input;and seventh readable code means for providing a second program interfaceto an Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system from which the totalcosts in proportion to several parameters of the individual systemresources are read out.
 10. The computer readable medium according toclaim 9, wherein a user interface for interactively controlling systemcost allocation is provided.
 11. The computer readable medium accordingto claim 9, wherein an SNMP protocol is implemented for a query ofsystem performance data of a data processing systems to be rated.